What It Is
Posted by Batman on 12-21-2007 in Marriage vs. CohabitationWell--quite the post from iqbalicarus--replete with allusions galore and some interesting perspective. I feel that you do not understand me completely ("I don't know what, precisely, Batman could mean") but you appear to pass judgment on my perspective--calling it "Angelic Love"--so I'll try to clarify--
Firstly, I agree that there is little difference between love and lust--they are intertwined. I do not attempt to make that distinction in the higher understanding of love--it is a combination of the carnal and spiritual. So this "higher understanding of love" is not superior to Shakespeare's fleshy version--if anything it encompasses it.
The love which I describe is an all-encompassing and tacit part of human nature. I don't know if iqbalicarus has felt such love--that bond of unspoken care, romance, passion, and lechery for a single individual--that it pains you to have a moment without their presence. Maybe it is this "Beloved outside of Consciousness" of which you speak--
Developing this sort of bond is what keeps the relationship as you say "interesting". It is this bond that makes me believe that there is a noted subtlety between marriage and cohabitation, between wanting security and already having it. Maybe I am idealistic in my interpretation--maybe I am just a mammal governed by my phallus--but humanity to me is the juxtaposition of the mammal and the mind it comes with--capable of a higher understanding of love.
In response to: Infinity at the disposal of poodles
'Hymen, Hymenee, why do you tantalize me thus? O, why do you last only for a single moment? Why can you not continue? Is it because, if you were to last beyond that moment, it would surely kill me?' (The Goddess of Marriage employed as a synecdoche for the Supreme Communion of the Self with the Self; All Love is an Allegory of Masturbation).
It's a bit of a banality, nowadays, to presuppose a distinction between Love and Lust; that difference is a Vapor. Your Libido has as much to do with your 'transcendent' relationships as your Soul, or your Mind. Love between Strangers cannot begin without the interest (whether sublimated or explicit) of the Flesh (the Body being the provenance of our Dreams; thus spake the First Meditation of Renee Descartes). In order to sustain that love, moreover, one always requires the presence of an erotic Vitality (By this, I allude neither to the 'copulations of Lady Chatterley' nor to the diagrams of Vatsayan; The theatricality of the relationship, its aesthetic beauty, has to be maintained). When it comes to Autonomous (as distinct from manufactured) persons, I do not see how anyone can disagree with Marcello (8 1/2): 'I don't want your sticky, maternal love. It's not love. It's brutalization.'
I don't know what, precisely, Batman could mean when he writes of 'a higher understanding of love.' Is it superior to Shakespeare's understanding of (fleshly) love?
'My mistress' eyes are nothing like the Sun,
Coral is far more red than her lips' red,
If snows be white, why then her breasts are dun,
If hair be wires, then black wires grow on her head'
Love has to be apprehended as an Antithesis, the Beloved outside of Consciousness, outside of Mimesis: Pure Negation.
There is no place for experiential reality when it comes to relationships amongst autonomous beings; there is only theatricality. The motivations are simple: the relationship has to be kept interesting. The dialectics of Marriage/Cohabitation (the two relationships are precisely the same) always have to stress the Devourer, not the Prolific. And Creative Energy, as everyone knows, originates in one's phallus. What Batman describes is Angelic Love, love amongst the unsexed; he forgets that Angels are inferior to Men. You are a mammal, sir, and an embodied Self. Spirit, for us, is always a Bone.